Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi guys, this is the final part of my series. I'm sure you've all been waiting on bated breath for... the Heavy Support Section of the Space Marine Codex!


For my coverage of the Unique characters, be sure to look up the first part of this series.
For my coverage of the Generic Characters, be sure to look up the second part of this series.
For my coverage of the Troops Section, be sure to look up the Third part of this series.
For my coverage of the Elites slot, be sure to look up the Fourth Part of this series.
For my coverage of the Fast Attack slot, be sure to look up the Fifth part of this series.


Well guy's, I've had a blast writing this little set of reviews - all 12.5 thousand words of them! I often found myself reading over the rules of a unit I hadn't considered and having a new appreciation for them. I hope that through my writing, I've managed to encourage at least one of you to have a look at some new units for your standard lists, or even just fun lists that want an edge.

Thanks for reading!

Not a bad write up. A few things that leap out at me over my morning coffee while reading:

No mention of the bolster defense for the TFC? It should give it a bump for the rules score, as it can boost other units in the army. Synergy is a rare thing in the HS slots.

You put a MM on all the LRs for your evaluation. IMHO the classic with the TLLCs doesn’t need it, giving it a 10 point boost over the others if you are including it. It’s also the one that can actually work as a MBT, rather then a battle taxi, because it has the range to threaten the whole table.

 Nevelon wrote:
Not a bad write up. A few things that leap out at me over my morning coffee while reading:

No mention of the bolster defense for the TFC? It should give it a bump for the rules score, as it can boost other units in the army. Synergy is a rare thing in the HS slots.

You put a MM on all the LRs for your evaluation. IMHO the classic with the TLLCs doesn’t need it, giving it a 10 point boost over the others if you are including it. It’s also the one that can actually work as a MBT, rather then a battle taxi, because it has the range to threaten the whole table.

You're quite right! I quite forgot about Bolster Defences. It's a bad mistake, too. Giving ruins a 3+ has saved me more than once!

I've run all 3 land raiders and I've just found that given their normal role as a battle taxi, you're usually getting into the thick of it, so a single S8AP1 melta shot just adds potential. While I can see what you're saying about the potential of the godhammer, I struggle to agree - I just feel like predators can comfortably fill that roll, arguably better given the autocannon over the heavy bolter. The reason I feel this way is that land raiders are hard targets, but if your opponent wants it dead they will find a way - very few armies don't have the melta or monsters not to deal with them, and usually the armies that struggle are not good matchups for the lascannons.

I will bump points for the TFC though, thankyou for pointing that out for me.

In a world of specialists the basic LR does loose out. Everything it does can be done better, cheaper, elsewhere. But it does bring a lot to the table, you just pay a lot for it and will probably not use half of it. One the bright side, it's the only LR that doesn't need to rush into melta range to justify it's points.

It's classic, I love mine, and feel compelled to stick up for it when the topic of LRs come up. But they are not for everyone's playstyle.

 Nevelon wrote:
In a world of specialists the basic LR does loose out. Everything it does can be done better, cheaper, elsewhere. But it does bring a lot to the table, you just pay a lot for it and will probably not use half of it. One the bright side, it's the only LR that doesn't need to rush into melta range to justify it's points.

It's classic, I love mine, and feel compelled to stick up for it when the topic of LRs come up. But they are not for everyone's playstyle.

I feel the same way about the predator, actually. They're a fantastic unit that by all accounts just got better this edition, I just can't take 9 yet...

I starting to like the whirlwind more and more. Yeah its only Av11, but its blast is large, S5AP4 means that they work wonders against tau gunlines, Dire Avengers and Necron Warriors.

I have a TFC, but I just can't buy all the praise it gets, sure its S6 with 4 small blasts, but being barrage means that when you scatter you go a long ways and AP5 means only guardians and guardsmen will die in droves. I end up paying 100 points for the bolster defenses and a guardian blob wrecker, but you rarely see them in an exploitable position. Just speaking from experience.

Couple of points where I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I also don't understand how you arrived at the conclusions you did.

1. The TFC and the Devastators. Under both of them you mention that neither can ever move and be truly effective (which is true), but in the face of this grim pronouncement, you gave the devs a mobility score of zero and the cannon a five.
2. You rated the Redeemer as better than the Crusader, and I'm not so sure I understand why. You mention that it can go faster because it doesn't have to stop to shoot, but an inability to engage enemies at range seems like that would make a vehicle WEAKER than one which CAN engage enemies at range.

As far as everything else goes, seems pretty reasonable. Like everyone else, you seem to be in love with the Thunderfire Cannon. I can't really dispute its awesomeness on paper, but its never performed well for me in the field. I'd like to give the Storm Raven a go some time, but it seems like a more survivable version of a Land Raider that will deliver my terminators into assault later than the tank would have.

The rest of the Heavy Support slot is just icing on the codex. It's tasty, but it isn't what I came for. Like Fast Attack, there isn't much in it to thrill me. Really, Troops and Elites are the bread n butter when it comes to marines, in my opinion. I can (and have) built tournament winning lists with no selections from the Fast Attack or Heavy Support slots at all.

Ooh, had one other thought. You mention pairing the Centurions with a buffmander. I've had great results pairing the buffmander instead with a devastator squad with plasma cannons. Ablative wounds, cheaper points cost, and four AP 2 blasts. (Just think of how much fun you'd have if your TFC was S7 AP2, rerollable scatter, AND ignored cover!) Just something to chew on...

One thing that you touch on with individual units, but really is a HS problem over all is slots. We get 3, 4 with allies, more with 2xFOC, but it is the limiting factor for a lot of things. The Whirlwind and stalker/hunters being the biggest offenders. They are good, cost peanuts, and get the job done. But if you only get to pick 3 things from the HS slot, are they going to make the cut? You end up in situations where a unit is good in <750 point and 2k+ games where slots don’t matter as much, but just aren’t worth the space in an 1,850 game.

No other slot in out list is this crowded.

The Stalker is strictly better than the Hunter against almost every target.

ML devs are utter trash because the ML is utter trash in 6th. Devs need a lower score.

TFC is borderline broken and needs a 9.0 or higher.

Vindicator in the 6th ed meta is quite poor and is no higher than a 4.0 imo.

Graviton cent devs are at least a 7.5 from sheer destructiveness. For mobility, load them in a Stormraven drop them with grav chute insertion.

There is no universe where the STormraven is a 7.2. It's 6.0 TOPS, probably even 4 or 5. It's overcosted because it dies way too easy for its price.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
One thing that you touch on with individual units, but really is a HS problem over all is slots. We get 3, 4 with allies, more with 2xFOC, but it is the limiting factor for a lot of things. The Whirlwind and stalker/hunters being the biggest offenders. They are good, cost peanuts, and get the job done. But if you only get to pick 3 things from the HS slot, are they going to make the cut? You end up in situations where a unit is good in <750 point and 2k+ games where slots don’t matter as much, but just aren’t worth the space in an 1,850 game.

No other slot in out list is this crowded.

The cheap picks are great for elite heavy lists. Of course, I think marine elites are largely asstastic, so I rarely use this configuration.

Martel732 wrote:
The Stalker is strictly better than the Hunter against almost every target.

ML devs are utter trash because the ML is utter trash in 6th. Devs need a lower score.

TFC is borderline broken and needs a 9.0 or higher.

Vindicator in the 6th ed meta is quite poor and is no higher than a 4.0 imo.

Graviton cent devs are at least a 7.5 from sheer destructiveness. For mobility, load them in a Stormraven drop them with grav chute insertion.

There is no universe where the Stormraven is a 7.2. It's 6.0 TOPS, probably even 4 or 5. It's overcosted because it dies way too easy for its price.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
One thing that you touch on with individual units, but really is a HS problem over all is slots. We get 3, 4 with allies, more with 2xFOC, but it is the limiting factor for a lot of things. The Whirlwind and stalker/hunters being the biggest offenders. They are good, cost peanuts, and get the job done. But if you only get to pick 3 things from the HS slot, are they going to make the cut? You end up in situations where a unit is good in <750 point and 2k+ games where slots don’t matter as much, but just aren’t worth the space in an 1,850 game.

No other slot in out list is this crowded.

The cheap picks are great for elite heavy lists. Of course, I think marine elites are largely asstastic, so I rarely use this configuration.

I was going to slam this response because of the sheer narcissism, but that would end up feeding a troll. Just gonna ignore from now on.

Like many here, I just don't buy the TFC hype. Yes, when it hits, can pack a wallop, but that's just the problem - without a reroll, it doesn't tend to hit very often.

The Devs are a incredibly useful in a Fist army, which the score of 5.6 doesn't reflect too well.

I like the Raven in principle, but 200 pts+ is kinda hard to justify.

ace101 wrote:I starting to like the whirlwind more and more. Yeah its only Av11, but its blast is large, S5AP4 means that they work wonders against tau gunlines, Dire Avengers and Necron Warriors.
I have a TFC, but I just can't buy all the praise it gets, sure its S6 with 4 small blasts, but being barrage means that when you scatter you go a long ways and AP5 means only guardians and guardsmen will die in droves. I end up paying 100 points for the bolster defenses and a guardian blob wrecker, but you rarely see them in an exploitable position. Just speaking from experience.

Deschenus Maximus wrote:Like many here, I just don't buy the TFC hype. Yes, when it hits, can pack a wallop, but that's just the problem - without a reroll, it doesn't tend to hit very often.

Against the squads TFC and Whirlwinds are good against, the TFC arguably puts out more hurt. Against the squads neither are good against, the TFC can do more tactically.

It has a deviation of 3" if you fire in line of sight. If you don't fire in line of sight you're only hitting 1/3 times, so you should hit once - even then your average deviation is 7" which isn't massive against most important targets of the weapon.

I honestly don't think you can justify a Whirlwind but not justify a TFC.

Jimsolo wrote:Couple of points where I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I also don't understand how you arrived at the conclusions you did.

1. The TFC and the Devastators. Under both of them you mention that neither can ever move and be truly effective (which is true), but in the face of this grim pronouncement, you gave the devs a mobility score of zero and the cannon a five.
2. You rated the Redeemer as better than the Crusader, and I'm not so sure I understand why. You mention that it can go faster because it doesn't have to stop to shoot, but an inability to engage enemies at range seems like that would make a vehicle WEAKER than one which CAN engage enemies at range.

The cannon gains a five because it arguably is less hindered by its lack of mobility - I think you might be right about 0 being decidedly low for devs, though

As far as everything else goes, seems pretty reasonable. Like everyone else, you seem to be in love with the Thunderfire Cannon. I can't really dispute its awesomeness on paper, but its never performed well for me in the field. I'd like to give the Storm Raven a go some time, but it seems like a more survivable version of a Land Raider that will deliver my terminators into assault later than the tank would have.

The rest of the Heavy Support slot is just icing on the codex. It's tasty, but it isn't what I came for. Like Fast Attack, there isn't much in it to thrill me. Really, Troops and Elites are the bread n butter when it comes to marines, in my opinion. I can (and have) built tournament winning lists with no selections from the Fast Attack or Heavy Support slots at all.

Later than a tank would have, and still have a purpose.

Your tournament winning list sounds like my tau list.

Ooh, had one other thought. You mention pairing the Centurions with a buffmander. I've had great results pairing the buffmander instead with a devastator squad with plasma cannons. Ablative wounds, cheaper points cost, and four AP 2 blasts. (Just think of how much fun you'd have if your TFC was S7 AP2, rerollable scatter, AND ignored cover!) Just something to chew on...

If there was a way to make P.cannons have a shooting attack like riptides do, this would be a standard build.

Martel732 wrote:The Stalker is strictly better than the Hunter against almost every target.

I disagree with your opinion.

ML devs are utter trash because the ML is utter trash in 6th. Devs need a lower score.

Agreed, but that doesn't make Devs a bad take. Just don't take ML devs?

TFC is borderline broken and needs a 9.0 or higher.

Don't tell me what to do. The scoring system would require 10's in every slot and a 5 in mobility to get it to be 9.0 or higher. This is unreasonable.

Vindicator in the 6th ed meta is quite poor and is no higher than a 4.0 imo.

Great! keep acknowledging that it's your opinion. Vindicators still have a place in my opinion, it's just much more niche by the weakness blasts have

Graviton cent devs are at least a 7.5 from sheer destructiveness. For mobility, load them in a Stormraven drop them with grav chute insertion.

Yup. And for their sheer destructiveness, they scored a 10 for output. They are second only to farsight bomb in sheer output in the shooting phase.

There is no universe where the STormraven is a 7.2. It's 6.0 TOPS, probably even 4 or 5. It's overcosted because it dies way too easy for its price.

Do you live in a universe where a quad gun is not better than an icarus lascannon? Aside from the firestorm redoubt, most armies struggle against AV12 in the air. Give it IWND and the stormraven almost never dies. Maybe you need to play it differently.

The cheap picks are great for elite heavy lists. Of course, I think marine elites are largely asstastic, so I rarely use this configuration.

How does running spammy marines work exactly? Don't you make an argument against suicide fast attack and elites on the basis that SM can't afford to lose bodies?

ace101 wrote:I was going to slam this response because of the sheer narcissism, but that would end up feeding a troll. Just gonna ignore from now on.

I don't think Martel is a troll, I think he just has a very narrow minded idea of what the space marine codex can do and what it should do. It's not narcissism or being a troll, he just doesn't see other views to his own.

without a droplet of contempt, I assume that he is that guy who'll tell you what to take from a codex and blam you for taking anything else.

Although, everyone does this for certain units. I refused to advocate for assault marines, for example.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
It has a deviation of 3" if you fire in line of sight. If you don't fire in line of sight you're only hitting 1/3 times, so you should hit once - even then your average deviation is 7" which isn't massive against most important targets of the weapon.

Placing it with LoS is a big risk - if I can see a TFC, it is likely one of the first things I will light up with my long range firepower. T7 and 3+ is not bad, but only 2 wounds won't make it last that long despite that.

Also, remember the way shots for Multiple Barrages are resolved - if your first shot deviates even only 7 inches away from your target, its already going to be quite likely that you will get few, if any, hits on target. And that's the biggest complaint I have with the TFC: its only really ever as destructive as how accurate that first shot is.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
I honestly don't think you can justify a Whirlwind but not justify a TFC.

I don't think anyone reasonable would argue that the WW is a good unit either

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
If there was a way to make P.cannons have a shooting attack like riptides do, this would be a standard build.

What do you mean by that?

Deschenus Maximus wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
It has a deviation of 3" if you fire in line of sight. If you don't fire in line of sight you're only hitting 1/3 times, so you should hit once - even then your average deviation is 7" which isn't massive against most important targets of the weapon.

Placing it with LoS is a big risk - if I can see a TFC, it is likely one of the first things I will light up with my long range firepower. T7 and 3+ is not bad, but only 2 wounds won't make it last that long despite that.

Also, remember the way shots for Multiple Barrages are resolved - if your first shot deviates even only 7 inches away from your target, its already going to be quite likely that you will get few, if any, hits on target. And that's the biggest complaint I have with the TFC: its only really ever as destructive as how accurate that first shot is.

And if it's the first thing they light up, then you've got yourself a solid build, right? Also unless I'm mistaken (I don't have a rulebook right now, so bare with me if I am) you could always put it in a firestorm redoubt.

Now then the argument for multiple barrages is silly. At most they'll deviate 3" from point, with them going the way you want them to approximately 33% of the time. IF you have 4 blasts with the first one hitting, you should hit just fine. If the first one deviates slightly, you can recover at least once, and if it deviates badly, you lose a turn of shooting from your oh-so-expensive 100 point unit.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
I honestly don't think you can justify a Whirlwind but not justify a TFC.

I don't think anyone reasonable would argue that the WW is a good unit either

I don't think you know what reasonable means when you say this. The whirlwind is an excellent choice. It's just overshadowed by other choices. That doesn't make it expressly bad.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
If there was a way to make P.cannons have a shooting attack like riptides do, this would be a standard build.

What do you mean by that?

Ion Accelerators are excellent because they're multipurpose. You can turn them against infantry with the blast, or flyers/FMC with the Heavy 3. I'm saying if Plasma cannons had a Heavy 2 variant, then 4 P.cannons in a dev squad would be very easy to include.

Do we agree on anything, at all?

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

And if it's the first thing they light up, then you've got yourself a solid build, right?

It could or it coudn't be. If its the only high T target in your list, probably not. If there are other vehicles/MCs/artillery in your list, maybe, depending on what those are. When thinking about target priority, one hopes to give one's opponent only bad choices.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Also unless I'm mistaken (I don't have a rulebook right now, so bare with me if I am) you could always put it in a firestorm redoubt.

I'm fairly sure only Infantry are allowed in buildings. Could be wrong but I'm 90% certain.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Now then the argument for multiple barrages is silly. At most they'll deviate 3" from point, with them going the way you want them to approximately 33% of the time. IF you have 4 blasts with the first one hitting, you should hit just fine. If the first one deviates slightly, you can recover at least once, and if it deviates badly, you lose a turn of shooting from your oh-so-expensive 100 point unit.[/b]

A 3 inch deviation from your target is still plenty enough to miss the target completely with the small blast marker. Sure, you may score a "Hit!" on a subsequent shot to allow you place a single blast on target, but that's still not stellar; assuming your target is not all bunched up, you'll likely kill 3 guardsmen/1 marine.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
I don't think you know what reasonable means when you say this. The whirlwind is an excellent choice. It's just overshadowed by other choices. That doesn't make it expressly bad.

Compare it to the IG Griffon heavy mortar: for 10 pts more, it gets one more point of S, and it can reroll the scatter dice. Plus it can be bought in squadrons. Now that I would call an excellent choice. The WW just doesn't have the damage output or the accuracy necessary to justify even its paltry cost.

It can't logically be an excellent choice if almost everything in the HS slot clearly overshadows it, as you say.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

[b]Ion Accelerators are excellent because they're multipurpose. You can turn them against infantry with the blast, or flyers/FMC with the Heavy 3. I'm saying if Plasma cannons had a Heavy 2 variant, then 4 P.cannons in a dev squad would be very easy to include.

The big difference is that SM actually have decent Flyers to deal with enemy Flyers/FMCs, whereas Tau really do not, and have to rely on things like the Riptide to shoulder the AA burden. As it stands, you can happily enjoy your plasma devs barbequeing enemy ground units knowning full well that your Ravens and Talons are there to assure air defence.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Do we agree on anything, at all?

Sure we do, I just don't bother pointing out things I agree with.

"How does running spammy marines work exactly? Don't you make an argument against suicide fast attack and elites on the basis that SM can't afford to lose bodies? "

I don't see where I advocated that. I think that the marine elite slot is pretty crappy in general. But if you DO spend a lot in the elite slot, you don't have much for heavy support, and that's when the cheap stuff is good. That's what I meant.

There's a lot to reply to, but specifically for the Stormraven, I kill them and have them killed with S7 all the time. It's not that hard to hull point out AV 12 HP 3 in one round of shooting, in which case, IWND means nothing. I think from playing with it and against it that the Stormraven is overcosted pretty seriously.

"I don't think Martel is a troll, I think he just has a very narrow minded idea of what the space marine codex can do and what it should do. It's not narcissism or being a troll, he just doesn't see other views to his own.

without a droplet of contempt, I assume that he is that guy who'll tell you what to take from a codex and blam you for taking anything else. "

I'm not 100% certain what to tell people to take because I really don't think the marine codex can really field a quality TAC list in the current meta. Most marine lists I have seen have a severe deficiency or two, even. Of course, I don't know what to tell people to put in to take on a jetseer or screamer star. Triple TFC and hope to go first? Lame.

Deschenus Maximus wrote:

It could or it coudn't be. If its the only high T target in your list, probably not. If there are other vehicles/MCs/artillery in your list, maybe, depending on what those are. When thinking about target priority, one hopes to give one's opponent only bad choices.

Target saturation is huge. Try putting one on a skyshield if you want it to be safer? 3 of them is not a huge chunk of your army and is relatively easy to keep safe

I'm fairly sure only Infantry are allowed in buildings. Could be wrong but I'm 90% certain.

Nope, I've put JPI in buildings before. they just count as bulky.

A 3 inch deviation from your target is still plenty enough to miss the target completely with the small blast marker. Sure, you may score a "Hit!" on a subsequent shot to allow you place a single blast on target, but that's still not stellar; assuming your target is not all bunched up, you'll likely kill 3 guardsmen/1 marine.

why do I only hit one marine? They have the same maximum coherency?

Compare it to the IG Griffon heavy mortar: for 10 pts more, it gets one more point of S, and it can reroll the scatter dice. Plus it can be bought in squadrons. Now that I would call an excellent choice. The WW just doesn't have the damage output or the accuracy necessary to justify even its paltry cost.

then stop comparing it to units we don't have access to.

It can't logically be an excellent choice if almost everything in the HS slot clearly overshadows it, as you say.

It very logically can be an excellent be an excellent choice. It being overshadowed by other excellent choices doesn't mean it is not still quote un quote, an excellent choice.


The big difference is that SM actually have decent Flyers to deal with enemy Flyers/FMCs, whereas Tau really do not, and have to rely on things like the Riptide to shoulder the AA burden. As it stands, you can happily enjoy your plasma devs barbequeing enemy ground units knowning full well that your Ravens and Talons are there to assure air
defence.

Sure, but I still believe P.cannons with a single fire mode would be more flexible.


Sure we do, I just don't bother pointing out things I agree with.

humbug.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Target saturation is huge. Try putting one on a skyshield if you want it to be safer? 3 of them is not a huge chunk of your army and is relatively easy to keep safe

Even on a Skyshield they aren't really that much harder to kill.

It's not so much that they are costly insomuch as that is also the slot Devastators and Predators are.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Nope, I've put JPI in buildings before. they just count as bulky.

Jump Pack Infantry is still Infantry

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

why do I only hit one marine? They have the same maximum coherency?

You hit 3, but you still get your Armour Save - ergo, 3 dead Guardsmen, but only 1 dead Marine (1 in 3 failed 3+ armour save).

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
then stop comparing it to units we don't have access to.

Why? Looking at the units in isolation within the Codex doesn't give you a very acurate idea of how good it actually is - you have to compare it to similar units in other codexes to see how cost-efficient it actually is.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
It very logically can be an excellent be an excellent choice. It being overshadowed by other excellent choices doesn't mean it is not still quote un quote, an excellent choice.

That is true in theory; in practice there are considerable gaps between how good the WW is compared to say the Storm Raven. So if the Storm Raven is "Excellent", well logically the WW can't be "excellent" as well.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Sure, but I still believe P.cannons with a single fire mode would be more flexible.

I am not saying the contrary; I'm merely pointing out that knocking the buffmander/plasma devs combo on the grounds that it can't fire at Flyers is not taking into consideration that it's not really a big deal, given the presence of decent SM Flyers to take care of the AA duty.

Deschenus Maximus wrote:

Even on a Skyshield they aren't really that much harder to kill.

It's not so much that they are costly insomuch as that is also the slot Devastators and Predators are.

I rarely need to fit 3 devastator squads in one list, and I rarely take 2 predators with a devastator squad. TFCs have my vote.

Jump Pack Infantry is still Infantry

Jet*pack. I don't have a rulebook right now, but I'm sure you do. Why don't you go and settle the rules query involved in this for me. (that's a polite request not a snide remark.)

You hit 3, but you still get your Armour Save - ergo, 3 dead Guardsmen, but only 1 dead Marine (1 in 3 failed 3+ armour save).

So I'd only kill for two guardsmen, right? since I'm usually going to ignore their cover over AP5.

Why? Looking at the units in isolation within the Codex doesn't give you a very acurate idea of how good it actually is - you have to compare it to similar units in other codexes to see how cost-efficient it actually is.

But comparing a unit in an army to a unit you don't have access to (for example, comparing riptides to heldrakes) is silly. The Dynamic of Guard, what it needs, is different to that of the SM codex. We have access to TFC. Unless we really want allies in guard we keep access to TFCs.

That is true in theory; in practice there are considerable gaps between how good the WW is compared to say the Storm Raven. So if the Storm Raven is "Excellent", well logically the WW can't be "excellent" as well.

Apples to oranges. If one is taking 1 WW, they are not worried about taking storm ravens because they have the role the storm raven would fill filled by other units. The same response is warranted for everything in the SM Heavy Support Slot Bar TFCs (which do beat them out), Weirdly outkitted devs/preds and crusaders. If they need storm ravens, they usually take two - you don't usually need the third one when you already have redundancy, so they have space for a whirlwind if they wish. Of coure, the tank does not compete with units that do need all three slots (Predators, vindicators etc.) because the army doesn't need what it brings to the table.

I am not saying the contrary; I'm merely pointing out that knocking the buffmander/plasma devs combo on the grounds that it can't fire at Flyers is not taking into consideration that it's not really a big deal, given the presence of decent SM Flyers to take care of the AA duty.

I didn't knock it, I simply said it wasn't standard.

We agree on one thing! Predators! hah! I win!.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

I rarely need to fit 3 devastator squads in one list, and I rarely take 2 predators with a devastator squad. TFCs have my vote.

For me it depends on which list I am playing, but its for sure that all my Heavy slots will be filled with either Devastators, Predators, Storm Ravens or Vindicators. If either Preds or Devs were situated in another slot, I might be tempted to use the TFC, but as it stands, I value what they (Preds/Devs) bring too much not to take them.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Jet*pack. I don't have a rulebook right now, but I'm sure you do. Why don't you go and settle the rules query involved in this for me. (that's a polite request not a snide remark.)

Just checked: BRB says Infantry only. I think either the FAQ or Stronghold Assault clarifies that this includes Jump and Jetpack Infantry.
So no TFCs inside of Bunkers, I'm afraid.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

So I'd only kill for two guardsmen, right? since I'm usually going to ignore their cover over AP5.

Well technicaly 2.5 (3 hits x 5/6 wounds = 2.5 dead); I rounded up to 3 to be generous

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

But comparing a unit in an army to a unit you don't have access to (for example, comparing riptides to heldrakes) is silly. The Dynamic of Guard, what it needs, is different to that of the SM codex. We have access to TFC. Unless we really want allies in guard we keep access to TFCs.

You can compare units that fill similar roles. You are right to say that the dynamics of the armies might mean that it doesn't necessarily place as much value on the Griffon's abilities than a SM army may place on the WW's, but that doesn't completely erase the gap in performance.
And as you pointed out, one could always just Ally some Guard in to get access to Griffon if one was really hungry for some artillery fire.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Apples to oranges. If one is taking 1 WW, they are not worried about taking storm ravens because they have the role the storm raven would fill filled by other units. The same response is warranted for everything in the SM Heavy Support Slot Bar TFCs (which do beat them out), Weirdly outkitted devs/preds and crusaders. If they need storm ravens, they usually take two - you don't usually need the third one when you already have redundancy, so they have space for a whirlwind if they wish. Of coure, the tank does not compete with units that do need all three slots (Predators, vindicators etc.) because the army doesn't need what it brings to the table.

I would disagree with your last statement, and that is really the key issue: regardless of the fact that they fill different roles, they do share the same slot. Short of running out of points, I will always fill out those slots with other units before I would ever consider taking a WW. If it was truly an excellent unit in the same way that say the Pred or Devs are, there could be at least some lists where I would be telling myself "you know what I really need for this list to be complete? A Whirlwind!" That never ever happens.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

I didn't knock it, I simply said it wasn't standard.

Fair enough.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

We agree on one thing! Predators! hah! I win!.

Lol